2. King of Judah (Joachaz or Jeconias, I Es 1"; Zarakes, 1 Es I^, see QPB). The name Shallum, found in Jer 22", 1 Ch 3'°, may possibly be signifi- cant, ' to whom it is requited (Keil), or may con- tain an allusion to the unfortunate king of Israel, 2 K 15" (Berlheau), but more probably it was his original name, exchanged on his accession for one of better omen. He was the third son of Josiah (2 K 23»'- 36 04i8)_ i,is position in 1 Ch 3"> being due to his insignilicance. Although a bad man, dcrt^Tj! jtoi /tiiapJs rbf rpiirov, 'impious and impure' (Jos. Ant. X. v. 2), he must have been a popular prince, since the people made him king in preference to his
eliler brotlier. He wasauoinf
-a ceremony speci-
fied iinl}- in the case of a new dynasty or a dis]iuted succession. Even the prophets .Jeremiah (22'""''-') and Ezekiel (lO-'"*) speak of him with s^mipathy and regret, .\fter his victory at Megiddo it is likely that Necho resumed "liis march on the Euphrates, and sent a detachment to Jerusalem to bring J. to Riblah, whence he was carried a prisoner to Egypt when Necho returned, after having reduced Syria west of the Euphrates. 2 Ch 36' might imply that Necho visited Jerusalem in person when deposing Jehoaliaz. This is un- likely ; but he probably did so on his return 1'oumey (see Rawlinson's note on Herodotus, ii. 69).
3. = AIIAZIAH of Judah, 2 Ch 21" 25^.
N. J. D. White.
JEHOASH or JOASH (rs'i.-i;, a^S-, px- 2 Ch 24' •J" is strong,' or 'J" hath bestowed"). — 1. Kin" of Judah (2 K 11. 12, 2 Ch 22"'-24). A year-old infant when hidilcn by his aunt in a lumber-roora of the palace (RVm,Jos. Ant. IX. vii. I) from his unnatural grandmother, J. was but seven when placed on the throne of his ancestors (see Ath aliah
• See on tfiis name and on ' Josiah ' a paper by Homme] in Expot. Timet, viii. CSOT) p. 562.
and Jehoiada). It is sufficient here to observe that the signiiicance of his coronation, as the revival of David's line, was emiihasizcil, not only by the employment of David's dedicated armoury, but by a ceremonial of which there Ls no pre\-ioua record, the inve.stiture of the kin" with tlie roval insignia, ' the crown and the bracelets' (so Weflh. reading nn;sn instead of nny.i ' testimony,' cf. 2S 1'" ; Jerome [Qu. Uch. on 2 Ch 23"] .says ' phylac- teries are meant, on which were written the ten com- mandments '). The covenant was renewed, notonly between God and the nation, but between the people and file king (Ch omits), and,niorcover,Jehoi,ada took steps to secure the continuance of f he DaWdic stock (2 Ch 24'). The death of Athaliah was followed hy a reactiim against the Baal worship which she had fostered ; and the temple, which had been ' broken up' during her reign (2 Ch 24'), naturall3' becainn the object of the young king's pious care. The account in Kings of the raising of money for this purpose seems to have presented "reat difficulties to tlie Chronicler. At this period tiie commutation of .sacrifices by a money payment appears to have been common (2K 12"), and the money was paid to the priests directly, to each man by his patrons ('acquaintance'). The king directed that the priests should see to the necessary repairs, and should devote to this purpose (o) the money paid for the redemption of personal vows ( Lv 27"), and (/J) all voluntary oll'erings in coin. [Ch .substitufes the half shekel tax of Ex 30'»-'», while AV and KVm of 2 K 12'', supported hy Targ., Ra.shi, etc., imply that this was a third source of revenue]. The priests [Ch 'Levites'], however, with Jehoiada at their head, ignored the king's order; possibly from poverty, as the temple was then only one of many sanctuaries (2 K 12'). At last, in the 23rd year of the reign, the business wa-s, with their consent, taken out of their hands. Jchoiaila [Ch ' the king '] placed a money chest ' beside the altar' (so Josephns) [Ch ' witliout at the gate'], into which the priests that kept the door (cf. 22* 25'*) [Ch 'all the jirinces and all the people'] cast the proper monies. The money was counted by the king's .scribe and the high priest [Ch ' chief priest's officer'], and according to Kings was de- voted solely to the repair of the fabric, whereas Ch asserts that ' of the rest were made vessels for the house of the Lord,' thus directly contradictin" 2 K 12". The Chronicler now records the crimintil weakness of J. in yielding to the idolatrous ten- dencies of the princes, and his base ingratitude as shown in the murder of Zechariah, the son of those to whom he owed his life and crown. There is nothing of this in Kings. There is indeed in 2K 12- a hint at a deterioration in J.'s character after the death of Jehoiada (denied by Ewald, who renders 'wherein' 'because,' HI iv. 137 n. 1); but, on the other hand, he is ranked in 2 K with Amaziah (14'),Uzziali (15'), and Jotham (I.5-") as one who ' did right in the eyes of the Lord, yet not like David ' ; the shortcoming in each case being apparently that 'the high places were not taken away.' liowcver, the reference to the murder of Zechariah in Mt 23", Lk 1 1", seems to guarantee that the story is not inserted merely to give a moral reason for the calamities of Jehoash. The Syrian invasion which followed [Ch immediately] is naturally represented in Ch as a special judg- ment on i. and the guilty princes, whereas in Kings it is implied that Hazael (not mentioned in Ch) did not actually take Jerusalem, but was bought ofl' by an immense bribe. In any case the invasion was a severe national humiliation, which must have caused much discontent, and this found vent in the murder of J. by two of his servants in the fortress on Mt. Zion. The Chronicler heightens the infamy of his end by adding that he was ' in